1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 52,041,096 as well as 5% per annum from March 1, 2014 to October 23, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Lease relationship 1) D with the instant store: (a) on April 14, 201, the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government E Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

2) 201 of the second floor inside the instant store (hereinafter “instant store”).

(2) On August 28, 2012, D entered into a lease agreement that leases the instant store to Defendant B on May 17, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 17, 201, and thereafter, D entered into as a part of the said store (10:15 square meters) by dividing the said store into a pharmacy and allowing the remainder to be used as a restaurant. A pharmacy’s part is KRW 70 million, monthly rent, KRW 1.6 million, KRW 50 million, KRW 1.6 million, and KRW 1.6 million, and KRW 1.6 million.

D. The terms and conditions of a special agreement related to this case among the lease agreements on the store of this case concluded between D and Defendant B are as follows:

- Special contract terms - No pharmacy type designation contract exists in the contract for sale in lots, and a lessor guarantees a lessor on the grounds that there is no business sector restriction provision in the contract for sale in lots, and operate the above 201 commercial building as a pharmacy and a restaurant, respectively.

The designation of a lessee for a pharmacy shall be in accordance with the above amount, and the lessor shall re-preparation the rental contract in the name of the lessee of the pharmacy, and the matters of the separate special agreement shall continue in this case.

If the lessee B is unable to designate the lessee of the pharmacy, he is also responsible to him.

B. On the other hand, on August 2012, the Plaintiff received the introduction of Defendant C through F, which had been working for Pyeongtaek Hospital or pharmacy establishment and introduction to pharmacists. He heard the horses from Defendant C to find a person operating a pharmacy at the instant store, and visited the said store on August 29, 2012.

Defendant C explained to the Plaintiff that there is no problem in operating the business with the permission of the pharmacy at the instant store, and Defendant G who is called Defendant B’s husband.